Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:10:47.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors influencing the economic potential for alternative farming systems: Case analyses in South Dakota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Thomas L. Dobbs ,
Mark G. Leddy  and
James D. Smolik
Thomas L. Dobbs
Affiliation:
Professor of Agricultural Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007.
Mark G. Leddy
Affiliation:
A former Graduate Student in Agricultural Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007.
James D. Smolik
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007.
Get access

Abstract

Results of calculations on the economic potential for alternative (low input, sustainable) farming systems in a small grain-row crop region of the Northern Plains are reported. Two sets of alternative farming systems, in which no chemical fertilizers or herbicides are used, are compared with various conventional and reduced till systems. In Farming Systems Study I (FSS1), an alternative rotation consisting of oats, alfalfa, soybeans, and corn is compared with conventional and ridge till rotation systems composed of corn, soybeans, and spring wheat. In Farming Systems Study II (FSS2), three systems with an emphasis on small grains are compared. An alternative system rotation consisting of oats, sweet clover, soybeans, and spring wheat is compared with conventional and minimum till rotation systems comprised of soybeans, spring wheat, and barley. Results of baseline economic analyses show that alternative farming systems can be competitive with more conventional systems in at least some situations. The alternative systems entail markedly lower direct costs, and the alternative system in FSS2 has approximately the same net returns as the comparable conventional and minimum till systems. The FSS1 alternative system has positive but somewhat lower net returns than the comparable conventional and ridge till systems. Sensitivity analyses were conducted with alternative system crop yields, chemical fertilizer and herbicide prices, and varying assumptions about future Federal farm program support levels and acreage set aside requirements. The yield sensitivity analyses show that one alternative farming system requires yields about 5–10 percent above those of the comparable conventional system to produce the same net returns. However, the other alternative system is competitive with a conventional system even with yields 5 percent lower. Analyses varying chemical fertilizer and herbicide prices reveal that the alternative farming system in FSS1 becomes competitive with more conventional systems when fertilizer and herbicide prices rise by 50 percent. The alternative farming system in FSS2 is already competitive at current fertilizer and herbicide prices. In some cases, sensitivity analyses with Federal farm program provisions indicate that reductions in farm program benefits increase the economic competitiveness of alternative farming systems. However, important exceptions occur. Results indicate that not only the level of future farm program benefits, but also the form of program provisions and compliance requirements, will affect the relative competitiveness of alternative farming systems.

Keywords

alternative farming systemconventional tillreduced tilloatsbarleyalfalfasweet cornsoybeansspring wheat
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Winter 1988 , pp. 26 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Cacek, T., and Langner, L. L.. 1986. The economic implications of organic farming. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. I(1): 25–29.Google Scholar
2.Dabbert, S., and Madden, P.. 1986. The transition to organic agriculture: A multi-year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. I(3): 99–107.Google Scholar
3.Dobbs, T. L., Weiss, L. A., and Leddy, M. G.. 1987. Costs of production and net returns for alternative farming systems in northeastern South Dakota: 1986 and “normalized” situations. Economics Res. Rpt. 87–5, South Dakota State University.Google Scholar
4.Domanico, J. L., Madden, P., and Partenheimer, E. J.. 1986. Income effects of limiting soil erosion under organic, conventional, and notill systems in eastern Pennsylvania. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. I(2): 75–82.Google Scholar
5.Duffy, M. 1987. Two of Iowa's low input agricultural research programs. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American Agricultural Economics Association, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
6.Goldstein, W. A., and Young, D. L.. 1987. An agronomic and economic comparison of a conventional and a low-input cropping system in the Palouse. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. II(2): 51–56.Google Scholar
7.Helmers, G. A., Langemeier, M. R., and Atwood, J.. 1986. An economic analysis of alternative cropping systems for east-central Nebraska. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. I(4): 153–158.Google Scholar
8.Knutson, R. D., Smith, E. G., Richardson, J. W., Penson, J. B. Jr., Hughes, D. H., Paggi, M. S., Yonkers, R. D., and Chen, D. T.. 1987. Policy Alternatives for Modifying the 1985 Farm Bill. Bul. 1561, Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
9.Leddy, Mark G. 1987. An economic analysis of alternative farming systems in northeastern South Dakota. M. S. Thesis, Dept. of Economics, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 141 pp.Google Scholar
10.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D. H.. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. Science. 211(6): 540–546.Google Scholar
11.Shearer, G., Kohl, D. H., Wanner, D., Kuepper, G., Sweeney, S., and Lockeretz, W.. 1981. Crop production costs and returns on Midwestern organic farms: 1977 and 1978. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 63(2): 264–269.Google Scholar
12.U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar